- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

BC comment on Registration Directory Service (RDS-WHOIS2) Review Team Draft Recommendations
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 18, 2018

Nov. 18, 2018

Attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding Registration Directory Service (RDS-WHOIS2) Review Team Draft Recommendations. This comment was drafted by Denise Michel, Jimson Olufuye, Marilyn Cade, Marie Pattullo, and Tim Chen. It was edited by Steve DelBianco and approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Candidate statement for Steve DelBianco -- BC Vice Chair for Policy Coordination
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 12, 2018

Nov. 12, 2018

BC members: I'm seeking re-election as your vice chair for policy coordination in 2019, so here’s my candidate statement for BC members. Looking back on my 2018 candidate statement, I promised to “expand the depth and breadth of policy participation by BC members … to build our bench of policy drafters.” Thanks to a growing and active BC membership, we achieved those goals in 2018: * The BC has submitted 46 comments/statements<https://www.bizconst.org/positions-statements> in 2018 so far, up from 38 in all of 2017. * 32 different BC members have contributed to comment drafting and editing, up from 31 in 2017. * Moreover, 10 of the 32 BC contributors were participating for their first time. If members re-elect me to vice chair for policy coordination in 2019, I would continue expanding participation by BC members while driving for more participation by BC members on GNSO and cross-community working groups. Our public comments are helpful to declare business interests, but we also need to be part of the working groups and review teams that develop the recommendations that are posted for public comment. A key policy challenge for 2019 is to preserve business access to registrant information (Whois) in order to address consumer confusion and fraud. Whois access is going to be affected by Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the BC is already leading other stakeholders in considering creative ways to comply with GDPR. If you’re wondering why the BC focuses so much on Whois, my column in our Barcelona BC Newsletter<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/newsletters/2018_BC-NEWSLETTER-ICANN63…> explains: …start with the BC’s mission to ensure that ICANN “promotes user confidence in online communications and business interactions”. Businesses use Whois data to protect their customers from confusion and fraud that is facilitated by deceptive domain names, and to track malware and DNS attacks targeting business websites. Acknowledging that all of ICANN’s contracts and commitments are enforced subject to applicable laws, there is much room for interpretation and discretion of GDPR law when applying it to Whois. Also in 2019, the BC will need to advocate for general business interests in multiple reviews and working groups planning for subsequent expansions of the gTLD space. Again, we need more BC members to participate in these working groups. My current ICANN Statement of Interest is posted here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43980848/DelBianco%20-%20S…> and below: For 18 years I have led NetChoice, a trade association of e-commerce companies and online services, including Airbnb, Alibaba, AoL, eBay, Expedia, Facebook, Google, HomeAway, Lyft, PayPal, Overstock, VeriSign, and Yahoo. (see http://www.netchoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> ) I set the policy agenda for NetChoice and frequently testify at international venues, before the US Congress, and in state legislatures, on issues relating to Internet governance, e-commerce taxation, privacy, and consumer protection. I also represent NetChoice at ICANN meetings and at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). I have no financial ownership or management role in any registries, registrars or other firms that are, or aspire to be, contract parties with ICANN. One NetChoice member is a large registry operator, and some other members are operating new gTLDs. The basis of my interest in ICANN is to maintain the integrity and availability of e-commerce and internet services. This stems from the NetChoice mission statement: To make the Internet safe for free enterprise and free expression. -- Steve DelBianco President NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615-6206

2 1

Business Constituency Comment on draft PTI and IANA FY20 Operating Plan and Budgets
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 10, 2018

Nov. 10, 2018

Below and attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding draft PTI and IANA FY20 Operating Plan and Budgets PTI: The BC notes responsive improvement in the FY20 PTI Operating Plan and Budget proposal based on past comments. However, on page 7 there is a 0.1% reduction in FY20 Budget compared to that of FY19 when the subject values (Total Cash Expenses) are each USD$10m, which is confusing. Similar situation is noted on the computations. We request that figures be computed to 2 decimal positions instead of one so that the equivalent percentage difference can be apparent. Also, since ICANN is producing long term budget scenarios, BC recommends that PTI does the same. The BC endorses this draft PTI budget if noted computational errors are corrected. IANA: The BC notes responsive improvement in the FY20 IANA Operating Plan and Budget proposal based on past comments. However, on page 5 there is a 0.1% reduction in FY20 Budget compared to that of FY19 when the subject values (Total Cash Expenses) are each USD$10m, which is confusing. We request that figures be computed to 2 decimal positions instead of one so that the equivalent percentage difference can be apparent. We note an error in the computation of percentage increase of IANA budget handled by ICANN, which is 1.9% instead of 2.2% as indicated. Also, since ICANN is producing long term budget scenarios, BC recommends that IANA does the same. The BC endorses this draft IANA budget if noted computational errors are corrected. -- This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye, and was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Barcelona GAC Communique
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 25, 2018

Oct. 25, 2018

It’s up, at https://gac.icann.org/advice/communiques/icann63%20gac%20communiqué.pdf Below I pasted just the official GAC Advice part: The following items of advice from the GAC to the Board have been reached on the basis of consensus as defined in the ICANN Bylaws5: 1. Two-Character Country Codes at the Second Level a. The GAC advises the Board to: 1. Explain in writing how and why it considers it is implementing GAC advice on the release of country codes at the second level and 2. Explain in writing whether its Resolution of 8 November 2016 and its change from the preexisting release process (indicated in specification 5. 2 of the Registry Agreement, sentence 1) to a new curative process (under sentence 2) are compatible with GAC advice on this topic, or whether it constitutes a rejection of GAC advice. The GAC advises the Board to set out its explanation in writing by 31 December 2018. Previous GAC advice on this matter stands. 3. Ensure that its direction to the ICANN CEO to “engage with concerned governments to listen to their views and concerns and further explain the Board’s decision making process” (Board Resolution 2017.06.12.01) is fully implemented including direct engagement with those governments in order to fully address their concerns. RATIONALE This advice is adopted to support and oversee implementation by the Board of existing GAC Advice on the matter, including calling upon the Board to work towards resolution of countries concerns relating to the release of country codes as a result of the withdrawal of the release process in 2016. 5 Bylaws section.12.2.(a)(x) The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Governmental Advisory Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection (“GAC Consensus Advice”), may only be rejected by a vote of no less than 60% of the Board, and the Governmental Advisory Committee and the Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. The Governmental Advisory Committee will state whether any advice it gives to the Board is GAC Consensus Advice. 2. IGO Protections a. The GAC advises the Board to: i. facilitate a substantive, solutions-oriented dialogue between the GNSO and the GAC in an effort to resolve the longstanding issue of IGO protections, on which it reaffirms its previous advice, notably with respect to the creation of a curative mechanism and maintenance of temporary protections. RATIONALE The GAC understands that the GNSO has decided at this stage to not vote on the final report for the PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms, which adopted recommendations in direct conflict with longstanding GAC advice. Noting the positive advancements achieved to bridge the gap between GNSO and GAC advice on identifiers for the Red Cross, the GAC remains optimistic that a substantive dialogue with the GSNO could help both sides better understand the issues at play and reach a lasting solution that can provide IGOs with GAC-advised protections for their acronyms while addressing the concerns of the GNSO. VI. Follow-up on Previous Advice The following items reflect matters related to previous consensus advice provided to the Board. 1. GDPR and WHOIS We emphasize the GAC consensus advice from ICANN62 that urged ICANN to take all steps necessary to ensure the development and implementation of a unified access model that addresses accreditation, authentication, access and accountability, and applies to all contracted parties. We welcome ICANN’s efforts to facilitate the necessary community discussion through the Unified Access Model papers and emphasize the need to drive these discussions towards concrete and timely results. 2. Dot Amazon Applications The GAC welcomes the 16 September 2018 Board resolution on the .Amazon applications directing the ICANN President and CEO “to support the development of a solution that would allow the .AMAZON applications to move forward in a manner that would align GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice and inputs on this topic”. The GAC notes that the rationale of the 16 September 2018 Board resolution states that “[t]he Board is taking this action today to further the possibility of delegation of the .AMAZON applications ... while recognizing the public policy issues raised through GAC advice on these applications”. The GAC recalls its latest advice on the matter where “[t]he GAC recognizes the need to find a mutually acceptable solution” for the Amazon countries and for the applicant, and calls upon the Board to continue facilitating work that could result in such a solution (GAC Communiqué, Abu Dhabi, 1 November 2017). 3. Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Designations and Identifiers The GAC welcomes the progress made in the process of reconciliation between the GAC’s consistent advice and the GNSO’s past policy determinations on the issue of the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers and marks its appreciation for the inclusive consultative process conducted under the auspices of the GNSO's reconvened Working Group on the Red Cross and Red Crescent names. The Board is encouraged to adopt the GNSO Council's recommendations, which regard the reservation of the list of names of the 191 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in relevant languages, as well as of the international organizations within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The GAC notes that the issue of the acronyms of the two international organizations within the Movement (ICRC and IFRC) were not covered under the abovementioned GNSO process and recalls standing GAC Advice that the temporary protections presently accorded to these acronyms remain in place until such time an appropriate resolution of this issue is reached.

1 0

CSG joins NCSG on letter to ICANN, regarding 12-month clock for challenging board actions
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 25, 2018

Oct. 25, 2018

As discussed in CSG meetings this week, the BC joined the IPC, ISPs, and the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) in this letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/badiei-et-al-to-chalab…> to ICANN board. The letter re-iterates the BC position in our Aug-2018 comment<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2018/2018_08Augus…> on Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations. We oppose a strict 12-month time limit on IRP challenges. (see letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/badiei-et-al-to-chalab…> for details) Today in Barcelona, the board adopted their resolution for interim rules while the community continues to discuss issues such as the time limit. (scribe feed below) WE NOW MOVE TO THE NEXT RESOLUTION, ITEM 2. D, INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERIM SUPPLEMENTARY RULES OF PROCEDURES. CHRIS DISSPAIN IS THE SHEPHERD. CHRIS. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, CHERINE. FOR THIS I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO READ THE WHEREASES, BECAUSE I THINK THEY SET OUT CLEARLY WHY WE'RE HERE ON THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION AND THEN I'M GOING TO TAKE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. SO WHEREAS, THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS, IRP, IS AN ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM PROVIDED BY THE ICANN BYLAWS THAT ALLOWS FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEW OF ICANN BOARD OR STAFF ACTIONS (OR INACTIONS) ALLEGED BY AN AFFECTED PARTY TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH ICANN'S ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OR BYLAWS. WHEREAS, ICANN IRPs ARE GOVERNED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS, (ICDR) INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION RULES, AS MODIFIED BY THE IRP SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES. WHEREAS, AN IRP IMPLEMENTATION OVERSIGHT TEAM, IOT, WAS FORMED UNDER THE BYLAWS TO, AMONG OTHER TASKS, DRAFT THE DETAILED IRP SUPPLEMENTARY RULES OF PROCEDURE (UPDATED SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES) FOR BOARD ADOPTION. WHEREAS, THE IRP IOT HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN DRAFTING THE UPDATED IRP SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES; HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL SOME AREAS THAT NEED FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ARE NOT READY TO BE FINALIZED FOR BOARD APPROVAL. WHEREAS, IN CONSIDERATION THAT THE SUBJECT SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES IN EFFECT DO NOT CORRESPOND TO THE BYLAWS AS UPDATED ON THE 1st OF OCTOBER, 2016, THE IRP IOT HAS DEVELOPED A SET OF INTERIM SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES THAT ALIGN WITH THE CURRENT BYLAWS, IN ORDER TO APPLY TO AN IRP IF ONE IS INITIATED BEFORE ALL ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED TO MEET A FINAL SET OF UPDATED IRP SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES. AS OF THE 21st OF OCTOBER, 2018, THE IOT CONSENTED TO SUBMITTING THIS SET OF INTERIM SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION. WHEREAS, THE IRP IOT IS, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, CONSIDERING POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO RULE 4 REGARDING TIME LIMITS FOR FILING AN IRP, AND THERE DOES NOT YET APPEAR TO BE COMMUNITY CONSENSUS ON WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE AN OUTSIDE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION IN 4 HAS BEEN GOING ON A LONG TIME, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY GOOD THAT WE HAVE A RESOLUTION FOR IT THAT ALLOWS -- LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN FOR THE CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND FOR REDRESS OF ANYTHING THAT MAY FALL IN THE GAPS. I'M REALLY QUITE PLEASED WITH THAT. THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS THE IOT GROUP IN WHICH I HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IS OPERATING UNDER THE PRESSURE OF ALMOST NO PARTICIPANTS OR VERY FEW PARTICIPANTS, THE SAME THREE OR FOUR. AND WITH HAVING SEEN THE INTEREST THAT CAME OUT IN THE LETTERS ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THIS ISSUE WAS AND HOW CRITICAL IT WAS THAT ALL OPINIONS BE CONSIDERED, I'M REALLY HOPING THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO GO FROM INTERIM TO FINAL, WE ACTUALLY SEE FULL PARTICIPATION IN THE GROUP. THANKS. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANKS, AVRI. I ENDORSE THAT COMPLETELY. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE WORKING GROUP. ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE I READ THE RESOLUTION AND HAND IT BACK TO CHERINE? OKAY. SO I'M JUST GOING TO READ THE RESOLUTION. THERE ARE TWO. RESOLVED, THE BOARD ADOPTS THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERIM SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES. AND, RESOLVED, THE BOARD THANKS THE IRP IOT FOR ITS WORK TO DATE AND URGES THE IRP IOT TO DELIVER A SET OF UPDATED SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES TO THE BOARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. CHERINE. >>CHERINE CHALABY: THANK YOU, CHRIS. BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? BECKY. >>BECKY BURR: I JUST WANT TO REITERATE AVRI'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS. THE MODIFICATIONS -- CREATION OF A STANDING PANEL AND THE MODIFICATIONS OF THE RULES FOR THE IRP WAS A KEY CORNERSTONE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY-CCWG PART OF THE TRANSITION. IT'S GRATIFYING THAT WE ARE GETTING HERE TODAY AND IT WILL BE EVEN MORE GRATIFYING TO MOVE FORWARD ON FINAL RULES ONCE THAT COMMUNITY REACHES CONSENSUS ON THAT AND MOVE INTO THE CREATION OF THE STANDING PANEL. >>CHERINE CHALABY: THANK YOU, BECKY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THIS RESOLUTION? BECKY. WHO WOULD LIKE TO SECOND? RAM. OKAY. ALL OF THOSE FOR SAY AYE. >>MULTIPLE VOICES: AYE. >>CHERINE CHALABY: ANYONE -- ANY ABSTENTION? ANYONE AGAINST? ALL RIGHT. THE RESOLUTION IS PASSED.

1 0

ICANN Board approved resolution to replenish Reserve Fund (incl $36 million from auction proceeds)
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 25, 2018

Oct. 25, 2018

Here’s the scribe feed from today’s board meeting in Barcelona, regarding replenishment of the ICANN Reserve Fund. THE NEXT RESOLUTION, ITEM 2. E, RESERVE FUND REPLENISHMENT STRATEGY, RON da SILVA. RON. >>RON DA SILVA: THANK YOU, CHERINE. ONE OF THE KEY RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD IS FIDUCIARY OVERSIGHT AND THE OPERATING RESERVES FALLS DIRECTLY INTO THIS REMIT. IN RECENT YEARS, WE HAD -- WE MADE A SIGNIFICANT WITHDRAWAL FROM THE RESERVE FUND TO FINANCE THE TRANSITION. ALSO, WE HAD SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN BOTH FUNDING AND EXPENSES LEADING UP TO THAT TRANSITION. AS WE LOOKED AT REPLENISHING THE RESERVES, IT WAS A NATURAL OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL AND TO IDENTIFY MECHANISMS TO MEET THAT OBJECTIVE. WE ENTERED INTO AN ITERATIVE EFFORT WITH THE COMMUNITY AND ASSESSED THE INDUSTRY NORMS AND COMPARATIVES FOR BEST PRACTICES. THROUGH THIS CONSULTATIVE PROCESS, WE CONCLUDED ON AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL TO BE SET AT ONE YEAR OF OPERATING EXPENSES COMPARED TO THE CURRENT BUDGET, THAT WOULD PUT US AT AN OBJECTIVE OF AROUND $138 MILLION. WITH THE RESERVE BALANCE AROUND $70 MILLION, THAT IDENTIFIED A SHORTFALL OF 68 MILLION. WE SIMILARLY INVITED THE COMMUNITY INPUT AS WE ASSESSED SEVERAL MECHANISMS TO MEET THAT $68 MILLION SHORTFALL. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE SUPPORT FOR RAISING FEES, EITHER FOR ONE-TIME PURPOSE OR BROADLY ACROSS SERVICES. WE LISTENED TO THIS AND RECOMMEND TO LOOK AT OTHER MECHANISMS. ANOTHER OPTION WAS TO CONSIDER THE LATEST ROUND OF gTLD FUNDS. THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN CONSIDERING THIS FROM THE COMMUNITY BUT ALSO BROAD OBJECTIONS, BESIDES THERE ARE STILL EXPENSES RELATED TO THIS PROGRAM AND WE AREN'T PREPARED TO CONSIDER THAT UNTIL ANY LITIGATION RISKS ARE BOUNDED AND ANY REMAINING CONTENTION STRINGS ARE RESOLVED. BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE BOARD NOT TO CONSIDER THIS AS A MECHANISM TO REPLENISH THE RESERVES EITHER. SO THAT LEAVES TWO OPTIONS. EITHER FROM THE AUCTION PROCEEDS OR FROM THE OPERATING EFFICIENCIES. WE DISCUSSED A LOT SOCIALIZING USING THE $36 MILLION FROM THE AUCTION PROCEEDS, AND REALLY THAT'S TO MATCH THE AMOUNT THAT WAS WITHDRAWN FOR THE COST OF THE TRANSITION. THAT LEAVES A SIMILAR BALANCE THEN OF $32 MILLION AS A TASK TO THE CEO TO IDENTIFY FROM OPERATIONS. AND BOTH OF THESE OPTIONS, THERE WAS BROUGHT SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY BOTH FROM AUCTION PROCEEDS AND FROM OPERATIONS. AND WE BELIEVE THIS BALANCED APPROACH BEST ALIGNS WITH THAT INPUT AND IS PRUDENT TO AADDRESS THE SHORTFALL OF THE RESERVES. IN FACT, IN FY18, WE JUST APPROVED $3 MILLION OF OPERATING FUNDS TO BE DEPOSITED INTO THE RESERVES. AND SIMILARLY IF YOU RECALL IN FY17, AN AMOUNT OF $5 MILLION. THAT'S 8 MILLION OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS PRIMARILY FROM LIMITED STAFF GROWTH AND FINDING OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES BUT WITHOUT IMPACTING THE ABILITY TO DELIVER ON OUR MISSION. THUS, ASKING THE CEO TO ACCOMMODATE A SIMILAR DISCIPLINE ANNUALLY MEANS WE WILL HIT THAT $32 MILLION OBJECTIVE BY AT MOST EIGHT YEARS. WE IMMEDIATELY -- WILL IMMEDIATELY MOVE THE $36 MILLION FROM THE AUCTION PROCEEDS AND THEREBY HAVE A PLAN TO CLOSE THE REMAINING GAP IN THE YEARS AHEAD. THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE REGULAR AND ONGOING PRIORITIZATION. THIS IS A THEME I THINK WE'RE HEARING OVER AND OVER. THIS HAS GOT TO BE COLLABORATIVE. AND FOCUSING ON PART OF THE ORGANIZATION AND THE COMMUNITY TO ACHIEVE THAT. THIS WILL ALIGN NICELY -- WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK -- WITH THE FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN, CORRESPONDING FIVE-YEAR OPERATING PLAN, AND A FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN. WITH ONGOING DISCIPLINE AND PRUDENCE, THIS IS GOING TO HELP US FOCUS ON THE CORE MISSION AND MEET THE RESERVE FUND OBJECTIVE FOR FINANCIAL SECURITY. AS A RECAP, I'LL READ THROUGH THE WHEREASES AND THEN OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION. WHEREAS, THE BOARD CONFIRMED BY PREVIOUS DECISION THAT THE TARGET LEVEL OF THE ICANN RESERVE FUND SHOULD BE AT A MINIMUM EQUIVALENT TO 12 MONTHS OF OPERATING EXPENSES. WHEREAS, THE CURRENT LEVEL OF THE RESERVE FUND IS APPROXIMATELY $70 MILLION AS OF JUNE 30, 2018, REFLECTING A SHORTFALL COMPARED TO THE MINIMUM TARGET LEVEL OF APPROXIMATELY $68 MILLION. WHEREAS, ICANN ORGANIZATION POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A PROPOSED STRATEGY TO REPLENISH THE RESERVE FUND AND THE BOARD TOOK ALL COMMENTS SUBMITTED INTO ACCOUNT TO DETERMINE THE FINAL RESERVE FUND REPLENISHMENT STRATEGY. WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED REPLENISHMENT STRATEGY ENTAILS ALLOCATING THE RESERVE FUND, (I) ANNUALLY, FROM ANNUAL OPERATIONAL EXCESS OF FUNDING OVER EXPENSES FOR A TOTAL OF $32 MILLION OVER AN EIGHT-YEAR PERIOD; AND, (II), 36 MILLION OF A NEW gTLD AUCTION PROCEEDS. I WILL OPEN IT TO DISCUSSION AND THEN COME BACK WITH THE RESOLUTIONS. I SEE AVRI. YES. >>AVRI DORIA: THANK YOU. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT DISCUSSION FOR ME AND A DIFFICULT DECISION FOR ME. I HAVE LONGED BELIEVE THAT THE MONIES OF AUCTION OF LAST RESORT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BASED ON COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS. HISTORICALLY, I HAVE BEEN VERY VOCAL AND, IN FACT, RATHER STRIDENT ON IT AT TIMES. ORIGINALLY, I FELT THAT THE METHODS FOR DETERMINING HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE FUNDS SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BEFORE WE HAD THE FUNDS AND BEFORE HAVING THE FUNDS IN OUR HANDS STARTED TO INFLUENCE OUR THINKING. THAT WAS NEVER THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMUNITY OR OF THE BOARD. THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY SAID LET'S WAIT AND SEE HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE BEFORE WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF PROCESS WE NEED TO PUT IN PLACE. IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS NOW SINCE THE AUCTIONS CROSS-COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP WAS FORMED AND STARTED WORKING ON THE PROBLEM OF HOW TO USE THE FUNDS AND LIKE MANY, I AWAIT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. IN THE MEANTIME, THE PRESSURES OF THE RESERVE FUND AND THE MANDATE THAT THE FUND BE REPLENISHED AFTER THE TRANSITION COSTS HAVE BECOME A PRIMARY NEED, HAVE BECOME A FOCUS. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE COMMUNITY AND SUCH. AND WHILE THERE CERTAINLY ISN'T UNANIMITY ON THE ISSUE, THERE IS STRONG SUPPORT AS FAR AS I CAN TELL FOR THESE FUNDS TO BE PUT IN THE RESERVE. SO GIVEN THE NEED, GIVEN THE APPARENT SUPPORT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FOR THIS MOVE, I BASICALLY AM ALLOWING THAT TO SORT OF OVERRULE MY STILL VERY STRONG FEELING AND COMMITMENT TO THE NOTION THAT ALL MONIES FROM THE AUCTIONS OF LAST RESORT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMUNITY AND I'M HOPING TO SEE A DECISION, A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CCWG IN SOON TIME. THANK YOU. >>RON DA SILVA: THANK YOU, AVRI. LITO. >>LITO IBARRA: THANK YOU, RON. I JUST WANTED TO STRESS THE FACT THAT REGARDING THE FIRST RESOLUTION ABOUT THE 32 MILLION, IT'S A SAVINGS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO MAKE DURING THE SEVEN TO EIGHT YEARS' PERIOD. AND I WANTED TO STRESS THIS IS A JOINT COMMITMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD, ORG, AND COMMUNITY TO GET TO THAT OBJECTIVE OF SAVING 32 MILLION IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME. SO I JUST WANTED TO STRESS THIS IS A COMMUNITY WORK. IT'S A JOINT COMMITMENT AMONG ALL OF US. THANK YOU. >>RON DA SILVA: KHALED. >>KHALED KOUBAA: THANK YOU, RON. I THINK IT'S ALSO IN OUR DUTY AS BOARD TO STRESS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REPLENISHMENT OF THE RESERVE FUND. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE CONTINUITY OF THE ORGANIZATION AND THE ICANN STABILITY AND FINANCIAL STABILITY, SO IT HAS BEEN A LONG DISCUSSION WITHIN THE BOARD FINANCE COMMUNITY WITHIN THE BOARD ABOUT HOW TO DO IT. IT WAS REALLY AN IMPORTANT DECISION FROM OUR SIDE. MY PERSONAL VIEW WAS NOT TO PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE ON THE ICANN ORG BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT NEEDS AS WELL SOME SORT OF MAYBE HARD DECISION TO MAKE IN CHOOSING BETWEEN ACTIVITIES. THERE WERE AN INSURANCE FROM ICANN ORG WHICH I THINK GORAN AND XAVIER FOR THE HARD WORK THEY HAVE BEEN DOING. THERE WERE ASSURANCE THAT THE -- THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE SAVED FROM THE BUDGETS WILL NOT IMPACT THE COMMUNITY WORK, AND THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN OUR DECISION, TO EN E SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY STILL CONTINUED TO DO ITS WORK WITHOUT ANY IMPACT ON THE OPERATIONS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE ICANN ORG AND STRESS ON THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT DECISION FOR US TO MAKE. THANK YOU. >>RON DA SILVA: THANK YOU, KHALED. RAM. >>RAM MOHAN: THANK YOU, RON. SECURITY AND STABILITY IS NOT JUST FOR THE TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE UNIQUE IDENTIFIER SYSTEM THAT WE -- ICANN HELPS BE A STEWARD OF. IT IS ALSO ABOUT THE STABILITY OF THE ORGANIZATION AND TO ENSURE THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS ABLE TO HANDLE BLACK SWAN EVENTS. SOME FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY IN OUR DISCUSSIONS -- NO, MA'AM FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT OR NO NEED EVEN TO TARGET 12 MONTHS OF EXPENSES AS A RESERVE FUND LEVEL. THAT PERHAPS IT IS OKAY TO RUN WITH A MUCH SMALLER NUMBER OF MONTHS AS THE RESERVE. I'VE HEARD THREE MONTHS. I'VE HEARD SIX MONTHS AS APPROPRIATE LEVELS. AND IN FACT, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE SAID YOU REALLY DON'T NEED IT AT ALL. THE REAL ISSUE FOR THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS FOR ICANN TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE CLEAR INTENT HAS TO BE TO SAFEGUARD THE STABILITY ORGANIZATION AS IT EXISTS TODAY. AND CERTAINLY ALL THE EFFICIENCIES THAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO BEAR MUST BE BROUGHT TO BEAR. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE ICANN ORG HAS TO DO. BUT REGARDLESS OF ALL OF THAT, FROM A PURE STABILITY PRINCIPLE, WE REALLY OUGHT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT 12 MONTHS IS A PRUDENT AMOUNT. IT'S A PRUDENT NUMBER. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A VERY LARGE AMOUNT, BUT IT ACTUALLY -- IF THERE IS A BLACK SWAN EVENT, YOU MAY ACTUALLY NEED THAT IN A REAL HURRY. SO I'M -- I'M GLAD THAT THE BOARD IS GOING DOWN THIS DIRECTION, AND I'M ALSO PLEASED THAT MANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT THE MODEL WHERE THERE ARE 12 MONTHS OF RESERVES. I HOPE THAT WE CONTINUE TO EVALUATE WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER -- AMOUNT OF RESERVE AND WHAT ARE THE NUMBER -- APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF MONTHS, ET CETERA. THAT'S A BENCHMARKING EXERCISE THAT OUGHT TO BE DONE WITH SOME REGULARITY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I REALLY HOPE THAT WE DON'T SACRIFICE THE PRINCIPLE OF STABILITY OR THE ORGANIZATION AND THE RISK APPETITE THAT THE ORGANIZATION REALLY OUGHT TO TAKE IN FAVOR OF JUST NOT HAVING THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY ALLOCATED. THANK YOU. >>RON DA SILVA: THANK YOU, RAM. MATTHEW. >>MATTHEW SHEARS: THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE COMMUNITY INPUT ON THIS CHALLENGING ISSUE AND INDEED ITS DIVERSITY. I THINK THIS HAS -- THE BOARD HAS RECOGNIZED THIS DIVERSITY AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT CONSIDERABLE LENGTH. THE RESULT THAT YOU'RE SEEING BEFORE YOU, I BELIEVE, IS A RESPONSIBLE AND BALANCED WAY FORWARD, RECOGNIZING IT MIGHT NOT BE TO THE LIKING OF SOME. OTHERS HAVE PROPOSED AS RAM HAS SAID THAT THERE BE MORE ALLOCATED FROM THE AUCTION PROCEEDS. BUT I THINK THIS REPRESENTS THE RIGHT WAY FORWARD AND THE BALANCED WAY FORWARD. THANK YOU. >>RON DA SILVA: THANK YOU, MATTHEW. LOUSEWIES. >>LOUSEWIES VAN DER LAAN: I THINK KHALED, RAM, AND MATTHEW BEAUTIFULLY SAID WHAT I WAS GOING TO SO NO NEED. >>RON DA SILVA: THANK YOU, LEON. >>LEON SANCHEZ: I JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT'S BEEN SAID BY MY COLLEAGUES BUT I ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHATEVER SAVINGS THE ORGANIZATION HAS IN ORDER TO FULFILL THESE 32 MILLION TRANSFER OVER THE EIGHT YEARS CAUSES THE LESS IMPACT POSSIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN AFFECTED SO FAR WITH THESE -- WITH THESE SAVINGS. SO I REALLY URGE US AS BOARD AND THE ORGANIZATION TO WORK IN A WAY WITH THE COMMUNITY TO FIND WAYS TO -- TO LESSEN THE IMPACT THAT THE SAVINGS MAY HAVE ON COMMUNITY PROGRAMS. >>RON DA SILVA: THANK YOU, LEON. AKINORI. >>AKINORI MAEMURA: YES, THANK YOU, I'M JUST JOINING RON -- RAM, SORRY, ON WHAT HE SAID. THE STABILITY OF THE (INDISCERNIBLE) IN THE RESILIENCY OF THE SYSTEM. THAT'S NOT -- NOT MEANING ONLY WE DO THAT IN THE TECHNICAL MANNER BUT ALSO IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO SECURE THE STABILITY OF THE -- THE CORPORATE MANAGEMENT ITSELF. THEN THAT 12 MONTHS OF THE RESERVE IS NEVER TO BE TOO WEALTHY. QUITE -- QUITE MODEST -- MODEST LEVEL OF THE RESERVE. I'M REALLY APPRECIATE TO HAVE -- HAVE THAT LEVEL RETAINED. AND THEN AS ALREADY SAID, THE TO REPLENISH THE RESERVES FROM THE AUCTION PROCEEDS IS QUITE A BIG DECISION BUT IT IS -- IT IS BENEFITING IN STABILIZING THE OPERATION OF ICANN. THAT'S MY BELIEF AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I AM SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU. >>RON DA SILVA: GREAT. THANK YOU, AKINORI. SARAH. >>SARAH DEUTSCH: THANKS, RON. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN SUPPORTING 12-MONTH RESERVE. I THINK IT'S A VERY RESPONSIBLE PRACTICE FOR ANY NONPROFIT. ESPECIALLY ONE AS LARGE AS ICANN. VERY HAPPY THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT A ROBUST RESERVE AND I ALSO THINK THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS RESERVE PROTECTS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY IN THE CASE OF UNFORESEEN EVENTS OR ANY KIND OF EMERGENCIES, SO IT'S QUITE RESPONSIBLE AND PRUDENT AND I'M GLAD WE'RE DOING IT. THANK YOU. >>RON DA SILVA: THANK YOU, SARAH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? BROAD SUPPORT. BUT A LOT OF DISCUSSION. APPRECIATE THAT. I WILL READ THE RESERVE -- THE RESOLUTIONS AND HAND IT BACK TO YOU CHERINE. THERE ARE TWO. SO RESOLVED THE BOARD DIRECTS THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OR HIS DESIGNEES TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO INCREASE THE RESERVE FUND THROUGH ANNUAL EXCESS FROM THE OPERATING FUND OF ICANN ORGANIZATION BY A TOTAL OF $32 MILLION OVER A PERIOD OF SEVEN TO EIGHT YEARS, STARTING IN FY '19. RESOLVED, THE BOARD DIRECTS THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OR HIS DESIGNEE TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ALLOCATE $36 MILLION OF AUCTION PROCEEDS TO THE RESERVE FUND AS SOON AS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE. CHERINE. >>CHERINE CHALABY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU THE BOARD FOR THE -- FOR THE DISCUSSION AND THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A GOOD SEVEN MONTHS, THE BOARD DISCUSSION ON THIS AND I THINK WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND I THANK THE BOARD FOR A GOOD RESOLUTION, WELL BALANCED. WHO WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS RESOLUTION? RAM? SORRY. RON. OKAY RON. SORRY. WHO WOULD LIKE TO SECOND? SARAH RAISED HER HAND. SARAH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS? OKAY. ALL OF THOSE FOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES. ] ANYONE AGAINST? ANY ABSTENTION? THANK YOU. THE RESOLUTION IS PASSED.

1 0

ICANN Board approves resolution to allow .AMAZON to proceed
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 25, 2018

Oct. 25, 2018

Here’s the scribe feed from today’s board meeting in Barcelona: >>GORAN MARBY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH A STATEMENT WHERE I RECOGNIZE BOTH AMAZON THE COMPANY AND THE COUNTRIES IN THE ACTO REGIONS WHO HAS OVER A YEAR DELIBERATELY WORKED TOGETHER TO FIND A SOLUTION WHICH IS WORKABLE FOR -- WHO BOTH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE HISTORICAL INTEREST OF THE PEOPLES IN THE AMAZONIA AS WELL AS THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY. AND INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE -- FOR THE -- THE WRITTEN TEXT, WHAT WE IN PRACTICE HAS DONE IS, THROUGH FACILITATION PROCESS, CONSTRUCTED A SHARED DELEGATION OF .AMAZON, WHERE THE COMPANY HAS OR WILL PROVIDE COMMITMENTS TO THE ACTO COUNTRIES HOW THE .AMAZON WILL BE USED IN THE FUTURE. AND THE DECISION IS TODAY IS TO DELEGATE IT FORWARDED TO ME TO FINALIZE THOSE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THOSE COUNTRIES. AND I'M ALSO FORMALLY SAYING YES TO THE INVITATION TO GO TO BRAZIL FROM THE ACTO COUNTRIES TO THEIR -- TO FINISH OFF THE LAST ROUND OF DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU. >>CHERINE CHALABY: CAN WE PUT THE RESOLUTION ON THE SCREEN? GORAN, YOU MAY WANT TO READ THE RESOLUTION. THERE'S ONLY TWO RESOLVED. >>GORAN MARBY: RESOLVED, THE BOARD DIRECTS THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OR HIS DESIGNEE TO REMOVE THE "WILL NOT PROCEED" STATUS AND RESUME PROCESSING OF THE .AMAZON'S APPLICATIONS ACCORDING TO THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE 2012 ROUND OF THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM. THIS INCLUDES THE PUBLICATION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITMENTS AS WELL AS AS PROPOSED BY THE AMAZON CORPORATION COORDINATING TO THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES OF THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM. RESOLVED, THE BOARD DIRECTS THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OR HIS DESIGNEES TO PROVIDE REGULAR UPDATES TO THE BOARD ON THE STATUS OF THE .AMAZON APPLICATIONS. >>CHERINE CHALABY: WHO WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS RESOLUTION? LEON. WHO WANTS TO SECOND? YOU WANT TO SECOND? GORAN WILL SECOND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RESOLUTION? KHALED. >>KHALED KOUBAA: IT'S NOT A QUESTION. ACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK GORAN AS WELL AND HIS TEAM FOR THE HARD WORK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING TO HELP THE BRIDGE BETWEEN .AMAZON -- BETWEEN AMAZON CORPORATION AND THE ACTO. IT HAS BEEN A LONGSTANDING ISSUE, AND THE TEAM HAS DONE A GREAT WORK. SO THANK YOU, GORAN, AND YOUR TEAM. >>GORAN MARBY: THANK YOU FOR THOSE KIND WORDS. >>CHERINE CHALABY: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? RON, AND THEN -- AND THEN LEON. >>RON DA SILVA: THAN. >>RON DA SILVA: THANK YOU, CHERINE. WE HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITMENT COMPONENT IN THIS AND THE PRECEDENT THAT SETS NOT JUST FOR THIS PARTICULAR STRING BUT GOING FORWARD HOW THAT MAY SET A NICE PRECEDENT IN HOW WE ADDRESS SIMILAR COMPLICATED MATTERS GOING FORWARD. AND I REALLY VALUE THAT OUTCOME FROM THIS PROCESS AND LOOK FORWARD TO HOW THAT'S GOING TO HELP US, I THINK, IN THE FUTURE IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS. >>CHERINE CHALABY: THANK YOU. LEON. >>LEON SANCHEZ: THANKS, CHERINE. I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN SPANISH. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE ORGANIZATION FOR ITS EFFORT AND ESPECIALLY I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF THE GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED, COMPROMISE OF THE AMAZONIA TREATY AND THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE COMPANIES WHICH HAVE WORKED WITH THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK ICANN EXECUTIVES WHICH HAVE FACILITATED THESE DISCUSSIONS. I BELIEVE THERE IS NO PRECEDENT THAT SHOWS THE GOODWILL OF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED TO FIND A GOOD SOLUTION. >>CHERINE CHALABY: OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO? I'M GOING TO CALL FOR THE VOTE FIRST. THOSE WHO ARE FOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. >>MULTIPLE VOICES: AYE. >>CHERINE CHALABY: ANY ABSTENTION? BECKY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STATE THE REASONS? >>BECKY BURR: YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY EMPLOYER, NEUSTAR, IS THE REGISTRY SERVICES PROVIDER FOR THIS AND APPLICATION AND SO TO AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT, I HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS. >>CHERINE CHALABY: THANK YOU, BECKY. ANY OTHER ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. ANYONE AGAINST? THANK YOU. THE RESOLUTION IS PASSED.

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on Proposed gTLD-Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Profile
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 14, 2018

Oct. 14, 2018

Attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding Proposed gTLD-Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Profile. This Comment was drafted by Mark Svancarek, Tim Chen, Alex Deacon, Faisal Shah, Margie Milam, Stephanie Duchesneau, and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on Proposed Next Steps for Reviews
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 5, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018

Below and attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding Proposed Next Steps for Reviews. ATRT3 Timeline: In the Jul-2018 BC comment<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2018/2018_07July_…> on ATRT3 timeline, we expressed a strong preference for the ATRT3 to limit its scope to review just the implementation of prior ATRT Recommendations. We noted that this adjustment for ATRT3 was in response to unique circumstances attributable to the simultaneous development efforts for Work Stream 2 accountability and transparency measures. The Consultation Paper recommends starting ATRT3 in Jan-2019. AC/SOs would be asked to re-confirm or nominate review team members in Nov-2018, and the review team would presumably determine the scope of review when it convenes in Jan-2018. While staff is recommending a plan for ATRT3 that differs from the BC preference expressed in Jul-2018, at this time the BC supports the Consultation Paper proposal for ATRT3. Long-term improvements to streamline Specific Reviews: In the Jul-2018 BC comment<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2018/2018_07July_…> on long-term options, we proposed allowing the community members on a Specific Review teams to determine the duration of their review, and to suggest a “pause” in a review because of unanticipated developments (e.g. GDPR). The Consultation Paper proposes asking the ATRT3 team to recommend amendments to scope and timing of the other 3 Specific Reviews. This capability is already given in ICANN bylaws, via text that the BC suggested and supported during the IANA Transition. Per section 4.6(b)(iv): The Accountability and Transparency Review Team may recommend to the Board the termination or amendment of other periodic reviews required by this Section 4.6 and may recommend to the Board the creation of additional periodic reviews. The BC supports the proposal to allow ATRT3 to use its bylaws authority to recommend amendments to the other 3 specific reviews. Long-term improvements to streamline Organizational Reviews: For the several Organizational reviews required under ICANN bylaws and conducted by outside experts, the Consultation Paper proposes a process involving the community, board, and ICANN Org. The goal would be to design a more effective Organizational Review process for transparent and consistent ways to assess SO/AC accountability to their stakeholders and a means of implementing meaningful improvements. The Consultation Paper suggests that this process be completed before the Organizational reviews scheduled to begin in Jun-2021, starting with the GNSO review. The BC supports the proposal to conduct a community consultation on long term improvements to the Organizational Reviews. -- This comment was drafted by Steve DelBianco and Barbara Wanner. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) response to new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP initial report
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Attached is the response of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC) on the Initial report from the PDP on procedures for subsequent rounds of new gTLDs (“Subsequent Procedures”). We have provided specific responses and follow-up questions alongside selected recommendations and questions from the PDP working group. Please also see our May-2017 comment to this working group’s prior questions: BC Response to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Questionnaire<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2017/2017_05May_2…>. -- This comment was drafted by Vivek Goyal, Andrew Mack, Susan Kawaguchi, and Marilyn Cade. It was edited by Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0